Workers' Party Member of Parliament (MP) Sylvia Lim and Health Minister Ong Ye Kung engaged in a back-and-forth in Parliament over one of Ong's TikTok videos.
New insurance riders
At the Committee of Supply debate on Mar. 5, Ong addressed a question posed by Lim, during her cut for the Ministry of Health (MOH) on Mar. 4 (the day before).
Lim asked about insurance riders, which are amendments to basic insurance policies that offer more specialised coverage at additional cost.
Back in November 2025, MOH announced that in order to curb rising insurance premiums and healthcare costs, new riders sold from Apr. 1, 2026 will no longer be allowed to cover the minimum deductibles patients have to pay, before insurance kicks in.
"This means those with private health insurance will need to pay at least S$1,500 for any hospital stay within the policy year, before they can claim from their insurer," the Straits Times reported.
Those on the new riders will need to pay a larger share of the bills, as the co-payment cap on maximum out-of-pocket cash will be doubled from S$3,000 to S$6,000.
Lim said she recognises and agrees there is a need for cost containment, but raised concerns over a TikTok video that Ong had shared to inform the public about the change.
"In one of them, he appeared to suggest that the only use of the existing rider was to reduce the deductible and co-insurance, and the public should consider whether they need a rider at all.
However, my understanding is that riders may be essential, especially to cancer patients for other reasons."
How riders can be used
Riders help to pay for costly cancer drugs not on the drug list, which could be critical for treatment. There is also the issue of loss limits, as without a rider, patients would need to pay for 10 per cent of their hospitalisation bill without any cap.
Furthermore, preventive medical interventions may not be covered by insurance, Lim said.
She referred to a breast cancer patient who wrote in to the Straits Times, who described how her insurance would only fully cover surgery on the cancerous side, even though she was medically recommended to remove both of her breasts.
You can watch Ong's TikTok video here:
@ongyekung💡 Healthcare Insurance 101: Pt 3 💡| Think having more health insurance coverage is always better? Our private healthcare financing system is currently in a knot, and here’s why. 🤜🏼🪢🤛🏼♬ original sound - Ye Kung Ong
Response
In Ong's speech on Mar. 5, he thanked Lim for watching his TikTok videos, and explained the objective of the changes is to prevent the over-erosion of co-payment, which sets off a "buffet syndrome" and leads to a rapid rise in hospital bills.
Referring to Lim's question about cancer drugs, he said, "IP riders covering non-CDL drugs for outpatient treatment do not contribute to this erosion, and therefore this feature will not be affected by the changes."
He added that the changes to IP riders only affect new policyholders, but not existing policyholders.
"We will always watch out for the cancer patients when we make changes to IP riders."
Follow-up
Lim clarified that she "[doesn't] usually watch his TikTok videos", but that particular video was referred to her by people in the insurance industry.
The video created the impression that insurance riders were not necessary, she claimed, because at one point in the video, Ong flicked a wooden horse — representing riders — off the table.
"I don't know whether the minister is aware of the feedback that the video may have given the impression to members of the public that riders aren't really useful," she said.
She then appealed to Ong to reaffirm that riders are "indeed prudent".
Maybe yes, maybe no: Ong
In response, Ong quipped:
"That's the challenge when attention spans are so short and you try to put so much information in a short video.
I'm not surprised the insurance industry gave you that feedback."
He said that the point of the video was to examine if an individual "really needs" a rider.
Insurance is meant to cover expenses that one cannot afford, which a rider — apart from in the case of cancer — does not do.
What a rider does do is to cover deductibles and co-payments. But as premiums get more expensive with age, people should "balance the cost and benefit to see if a rider is really suitable for you".
He suggested that depending on individual needs, members of the public can consider whether they need riders, or if they could instead opt for the upcoming riders in April which cover less of the co-pay, but at a much lower cost.
"Some really wish to pay more premiums in order to cover as much as you can, and so be it," he said.
"But others... especially those who use public health institutions under subsidised care, really take a close look if you really need the rider."
High premiums
Lim then pointed out that without a rider, patients may end up paying hospitalisation bills of up to 10 per cent, without any cap. "That is one of the concerns about loss limits, in that sense," she said.
Ong replied: "That's not quite accurate."
He said that when patients go to private hospitals, where the bills may run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, they may want to protect themselves against the 10 per cent co-payment.
In such cases, riders may be suitable, he said. But as one gets older, to their 70s and 80s, "premiums run up to S$10,000 a year".
At subsidised public health settings, after MediShield Life and subsidies, patients are much less likely to be exposed to such high bills. So it is less clear if a rider will be suitable.
"Without the rider, you are saving that premium," he said.
"Do your calculation, talk to your financial advisor... and remember that in a public health institution, when you can't afford [the bill], there's always Medifund that you can apply for."
Top image from Canva and MDDI/YouTube
